If Apple were to sell a smaller 16-gigabyte iPad for $299 this holiday, one analyst believes the company would sell as many as 6 million units this holiday season.

Gene Munster with Piper Jaffray believes that Apple's rumored smaller iPad would be priced at $299 with 16 gigabytes of storage, given the company's $199 8-gigabyte iPod touch, and its $399 16-gigabyte iPad 2. Sandwiched right in the middle of those two existing products, he sees a smaller iPad cannibalizing 10 percent of existing iPad sales, but also taking away 30 percent of total Android tablet sales in the December quarter.

"We believe this implies that Apple could sell 4-6 million smaller iPads in the December quarter, assuming a holiday launch," Munster wrote in a note to investors on Monday. "If the launch occurs in (the fourth quarter), we believe the smaller iPad would add about 1% to revenue and (earnings per share) in December."

Munster had previously assumed that Apple would launch a so-called "iPad mini" in the first quarter of calendar 2013. That would be in line with the timeframe Apple has used to update its existing 9.7-inch iPad thus far.

But recent reports from The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg have indicated that Apple is planning to launch a smaller iPad by the end of the year. The device is expected to feature a 7.85-inch display with a resolution of 1,024 by 768 pixels, using the same display technology as the iPhone 3GS.

Munster expects that Apple will introduce its smaller iPad at the same event that it will unveil its next-generation iPhone. He also expects that Apple will refresh its Apple TV set-top box, which he admitted "could make for a crowded event."

He believes that the launch of a smaller, cheaper iPad will eliminate two of the biggest features for Android tablet makers in price and size. He expects that going forward Apple will maintain a majority share of the tablet market, and may even increase its presence over the next four years.

Last week, analyst Brian White of Topeka Capital Markets issued a note that was even more bullish on the prospect of a smaller iPad. White said he believes that a new, cheaper iPad could prove to have an even larger market opportunity for Apple than the current iPad, given growth trends in developing countries like China and prospective sales to the education market.

If Apple builds it, the buyers will come! But it is amazing how this has taken a life of its own now. It started off with whispered rumors, then built up to supply chain leaks and annonymous informants, then to specification speculations.

Now we have sales forecasts for a thing that, for all intents and purposes, is not even vapor-ware. It is just rumor-ware for now.

This holiday season should be very interesting. Even if the rumors are wrong, there is till the new iPhone that I am eager to see.

If a Retina Display... I can see $299. if a iPhone 3GS display, I can't see the market buying it for more than $199 (and the iPod Touch moves to $149).

But it is an 8" device, so maybe people will go with 'bigger must be better')

Assuming 30% margin after all expenses... that's 0.5Billion in a quarter at $299 - at 1% earnings, that means Gene is expecting $50billion in Earnings the December quarter. That's 300% growth over last Dec 31st quarter. That seems high ( I would guess 100% growth would be 'in line'). Maybe he's putting CapEx in that quarter as well (cost of the assembly line), and that will pull down the quarter (I would think that would have come in the prior quarter).

The $199 touch is from 2010! Hard to guess a price based on a 2 year old device. I would guess they will just kill the touch and make the iPad mini (or call it a touch)- either way, I'm getting it. And 8gb is plenty to keep the cost down- $199 is still easily doable and profitable- but $249 or $299 still seems reasonable.

Refresh to apple tv box? Did he miss the month of May? What could they possibly do? Maybe a new OS... But a new box? I highly doubt it.

Release it for $199 and call it The New iPod Touch. This breathes new life into the iPod line and diminishes the perceived role of the Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire to being iPod Touch competitors. Then Apple can just fight it out with the Microsoft Surface, since they'll be the only "real" iPad competitor at the 10" size. Kids (the biggest market for the current iPod Touch) will be delighted to have a larger form factor and more capability.

The $199 touch is from 2010! Hard to guess a price based on a 2 year old device. I would guess they will just kill the touch and make the iPad mini (or call it a touch)- either way, I'm getting it. And 8gb is plenty to keep the cost down- $199 is still easily doable and profitable- but $249 or $299 still seems reasonable.
Refresh to apple tv box? Did he miss the month of May? What could they possibly do? Maybe a new OS... But a new box? I highly doubt it.

That was my exact thought ... This could be the next gen Touch ... Simple as that! If so my guess would be more than $199 but less than $299 or possibly a range of versions starting at $199. Apple don't have to be as cheap as Android tablets to sell more but the price can't be too high. I for one hope this is true now so that Apple mop up the low end of the market too with a quality product that would, like the iPhone, continue to feed new switchers into the Apple Eco system. Mac sales and higher end iPads can only benefit from such a move over time.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

If this is about generating sales, there's a much less expensive approach. Start by lowering the US price of the iPad 2 to $349. Then you update the Touch with a larger screen, let's say 4.7 inches. The Touch is overdue for an overhaul and I don't think Apple is ready to pull the plug on it.

Either the mini is imminent or Apple is pulling a fast one to hide its true intentions.

Release it for $199 and call it The New iPod Touch. This breathes new life into the iPod line and diminishes the perceived role of the Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire to being iPod Touch competitors. Then Apple can just fight it out with the Microsoft Surface, since they'll be the only "real" iPad competitor at the 10" size. Kids (the biggest market for the current iPod Touch) will be delighted to have a larger form factor and more capability.

Agreed and as I have said many times I still suspect an even larger iPad, the ... iPad Pro will make an appearance in a year or two. A larger version designed to be used at a desk but still portable if required. I would expect an Apple stylus too designed for the likes of CAD/CAM applications and Photoshop etc.. Perhaps two versions, 17" and 23".

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

Agreed and as I have said many times I still suspect an even larger iPad, the ... iPad Pro will make an appearance in a year or two. A larger version designed to be used at a desk but still portable if required. I would expect an Apple stylus too designed for the likes of CAD/CAM applications and Photoshop etc.. Perhaps two versions, 17" and 23".

I agree with your first part part but not the second regarding a stylus. Steve Jobs will be haunting anyone making a decision like that for a long time to come. I just don't see it (a stylus) happening especially on a larger screen where you have the real estate and resolution to magnify an area to work on it (a small portion at a time). Sorry but although I might agree on a larger touch screen (I think it is more likely in an OS X iMac type product) but have a hard time seeing it on any Apple device in the near future.

Release it for $199 and call it The New iPod Touch. This breathes new life into the iPod line and diminishes the perceived role of the Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire to being iPod Touch competitors. Then Apple can just fight it out with the Microsoft Surface, since they'll be the only "real" iPad competitor at the 10" size. Kids (the biggest market for the current iPod Touch) will be delighted to have a larger form factor and more capability.

It would be irresponsible for Apple to get into a price matching scenario. Any victory would be a Pyrrhic one, there's likely very little profit to be had at that price point.

Kids (the biggest market for the current iPod Touch) will be delighted to have a larger form factor and more capability.

Several who think the iPad mini is a bad idea seem to forget this. Currently, if you own an iPhone, why buy a touch? But if they release a larger screen, then it has appeal to a completely different user base.

As a side note- just made a half dozen typos on that paragraph. On my iPhone I make none. While browsing on the iPad rocks- Typing on the iPad sucks- I can't wait for a smaller screen (I'm 6'2 btw- so my fingers aren't little)

If this is about generating sales, there's a much less expensive approach. Start by lowering the US price of the iPad 2 to $349. Then you update the Touch with a larger screen, let's say 4.7 inches. The Touch is overdue for an overhaul and I don't think Apple is ready to pull the plug on it.
Either the mini is imminent or Apple is pulling a fast one to hide its true intentions.

It would be irresponsible for Apple to get into a price matching scenario. Any victory would be a Pyrrhic one, there's likely very little profit to be had at that price point.

They make an 8gb iPod touch for $199. Why not- 2 full years later, be able to make a $199 7"? Particularly if they use old 3GS non-retinas (which the touch is). I think it'll be retina and $249-$299 if they release, but $199 is easily profitable.

If this is about generating sales, there's a much less expensive approach. Start by lowering the US price of the iPad 2 to $349. Then you update the Touch with a larger screen, let's say 4.7 inches. The Touch is overdue for an overhaul and I don't think Apple is ready to pull the plug on it.
Either the mini is imminent or Apple is pulling a fast one to hide its true intentions.

'less expensive'...

You don't understand what that means. as anantksundaram stated, less expensive means it has to be inexpensive to make, to maintain margins, and still be an amazing experience for 2+ years. 4.7" is an odd size in terms of iOS Geometries. which leads to the 'why' that dimension, which now we have to ask you... what pixel density do you see for this glass?

To be either Retina or non Retina with current geometries of LED displays, you'd have to make a whole new production line of glass. That's not 'less expensive' OR you would have to make a whole new geometry that is either not Retina or not 'double' some current geometry (doubling allows for the longest transition for apps and OS graphics elements), which would requires a a whole new set of iconography for the device, and that doesn't win you friends, or make apps less expensive.

so, in short, 4.7" would require a new LED glass substrate and/or a new geometry (something other than 3:2, 4:3). Unless there is a compelling reason you know of other than "I think that would be a great size," there are no production or UI drivers to use that size.

Apple always plays the long game. My suspicion is they hope to eliminate the 1024x768 geometry and non Retina Display devices (iPhone 3GS, iPad 1 and 2), before they change the geometry of the phone and iPod to 4ish inches. Hence my conclusion is that the iPad Mini will use iPhone 4 Glass .

My educated guess:

In the fall,

iPad 1 disappears

iPad Mini takes over with RD using iPhone 4glass (so the iPhone 4, 4s, 5 and iPad Mini all use the same glass) at $299 ($249 at the low end)

iPod Touch moves to $149.

In the Spring (2013)

Current iPad RD moves to $399

Next Gen iPad will come in at $499 with the similar features as the iPhone 5 (chipset, LTE, better batteries)

At the same time the iPad Mini gets an upgrade to LTE as well. and the current iPad Mini moves to $199.

In June 2013,

iOS7 is announced and the support for the 3GS/iPad1 is dropped.

In Sept 2013, the new iPhone and iPod Touch are announced at a new geometry at 4.small inches, using a new pixel density/technology.

In Spring 2014, a new iPad is announced at double the geometry of the new iPhone... maybe 9.5"

in June 2014,

1024*768 and the iPad 2 support is dropped in iOS8.

Apple may accelerate this (support for 1024x768 may drop in IOS 7.x) as they have wont to do in the past (killing the iPod Mini), but my guess is given the cost of glass, they will develop a glass foundry and milk it for 4 odd years (3GS glass is what, 5 years old).

Several who think the iPad mini is a bad idea seem to forget this. Currently, if you own an iPhone, why buy a touch? But if they release a larger screen, then it has appeal to a completely different user base.
As a side note- just made a half dozen typos on that paragraph. On my iPhone I make none. While browsing on the iPad rocks- Typing on the iPad sucks- I can't wait for a smaller screen (I'm 6'2 btw- so my fingers aren't little)

How can Apple be seen to be selling a number of units of a product that doesn't even exist? I remember back in 2009 or so, Gene Munster said Apple would sell about 45 million "iPhone minis" for the year. Obviously, Apple never came out with an iPhone mini. Now he's onto iPad minis this time around. This man pulls theories out of his behind and this is considered helping investors. Can't he at least wait until an actual product is announced before prognosticating about it?

As a side note- just made a half dozen typos on that paragraph. On my iPhone I make none. While browsing on the iPad rocks- Typing on the iPad sucks- I can't wait for a smaller screen (I'm 6'2 btw- so my fingers aren't little)

Yeah... It seems to have gotten worse. Landscape mode is a disaster for typing, and the split keyboard is a mess. The only clean way to type is portrait mode, and that is a disappointment as well. They need to license some of the dynamic keyboard technology, or just re-align the existing. Spaces, N's, and the delete key seem to be my main nemesis, but the randome spelling "corrections" are driving me insane. (I did actually type "random"!)

Apple's never about generating 'sales.'
Margins first. All other financial metrics are secondary.

Total profits are first. Margins are a means to that end. Margins are especially important when/where capital is scarce, but that is not Apple's situation. They have more capital than they know what to do with.

You don't understand what that means. as anantksundaram stated, less expensive means it has to be inexpensive to make, to maintain margins, and still be an amazing experience for 2+ years. 4.7" is an odd size in terms of iOS Geometries. which leads to the 'why' that dimension, which now we have to ask you... what pixel density do you see for this glass?

To be either Retina or non Retina with current geometries of LED displays, you'd have to make a whole new production line of glass. That's not 'less expensive' OR you would have to make a whole new geometry that is either not Retina or not 'double' some current geometry (doubling allows for the longest transition for apps and OS graphics elements), which would requires a a whole new set of iconography for the device, and that doesn't win you friends, or make apps less expensive.

so, in short, 4.7" would require a new LED glass substrate and/or a new geometry (something other than 3:2, 4:3). Unless there is a compelling reason you know of other than "I think that would be a great size," there are no production or UI drivers to use that size.

Apple always plays the long game. My suspicion is they hope to eliminate the 1024x768 geometry and non Retina Display devices (iPhone 3GS, iPad 1 and 2), before they change the geometry of the phone and iPod to 4ish inches. Hence my conclusion is that the iPad Mini will use iPhone 4 Glass .

My educated guess:

In the fall,

iPad 1 disappears

iPad Mini takes over with RD using iPhone 4glass (so the iPhone 4, 4s, 5 and iPad Mini all use the same glass) at $299 ($249 at the low end)

iPod Touch moves to $149.

In the Spring (2013)

Current iPad RD moves to $399

Next Gen iPad will come in at $499 with the similar features as the iPhone 5 (chipset, LTE, better batteries)

At the same time the iPad Mini gets an upgrade to LTE as well. and the current iPad Mini moves to $199.

In June 2013,

iOS7 is announced and the support for the 3GS/iPad1 is dropped.

In Sept 2013, the new iPhone and iPod Touch are announced at a new geometry at 4.small inches, using a new pixel density/technology.

In Spring 2014, a new iPad is announced at double the geometry of the new iPhone... maybe 9.5"

in June 2014,

1024*768 and the iPad 2 support is dropped in iOS8.

Apple may accelerate this (support for 1024x768 may drop in IOS 7.x) as they have wont to do in the past (killing the iPod Mini), but my guess is given the cost of glass, they will develop a glass foundry and milk it for 4 odd years (3GS glass is what, 5 years old).

My logic in referring to it as a less expensive approach is based on the following logic. The iPad 2 has already been developed and is rolling off assembly lines as we speak. I'm sure Apple recovered development costs on that device a long, long time ago. A price reduction at this time is viable and still Apple will make a lot of money. Yet wouldn't a $349 iPad 2 go a long way towards meeting the challenge of lower-cost 7-inch tablets? For a few dollars more you can have the real thing rather than a heavily compromised imitation that leaves out an important element, namely a large enough screen to give apps enough room to work in an enjoyable fashion. Meanwhile, unless Apple intends to kill off the Touch entirely, developing a new version has got to have been something they have been working on. Fact is, the resolution on the existing Touch is so high that you could retain it, go up in screen size in the range that I;m talking about and still have a device with an excellent screen. As for the number I threw out there, it was just a number I conjured up out of thin air. I'm not an engineer and neither do I know what the ideal size would be. That's Apple's role in this. I'm merely noting that there is room for the iPod Touch to grow while retaining its reason for being, namely to offer a pocketable device that does the work of a small computer.

By the way, I see no reason to kill the iPad 2, at least in principle. Building a lower-spec tablet for the lower end of the market that is still quite usable is a great idea. I bought one when the new iPad came out and have found it to be a marvellous device. Not everyone needs the latest and greatest. If you have a good product that can hit a certain price point, what's not to like. I could see the device given modest upgrades over time to remain part of the product mix. As well, in terms of killing iPad 2 support in less than two years time, have you really thought this through. Apple is selling the iPad 2 as we speak and has not announced plans to stop selling it any time soon. Do you really think that Apple would sell someone a new iPad 2 let's say in October 2012 and then stop supporting the device 20 months later. Never.

I agree with your first part part but not the second regarding a stylus. Steve Jobs will be haunting anyone making a decision like that for a long time to come. I just don't see it (a stylus) happening especially on a larger screen where you have the real estate and resolution to magnify an area to work on it (a small portion at a time). Sorry but although I might agree on a larger touch screen (I think it is more likely in an OS X iMac type product) but have a hard time seeing it on any Apple device in the near future.

The stylus is simply an after thought I added for very detailed work on the likes of CAD/CAM not for normal use nor absolutely necessary.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

Total profits are first. Margins are a means to that end. Margins are especially important when/where capital is scarce, but that is not Apple's situation. They have more capital than they know what to do with.

Total profits. The bottom line. That is the goal.

You don't understand Apple at all.

Apple is not "about the profits" or "about the sales" or anything like that. The essential difference between Apple and most other companies is that they haven't swallowed that Ideological Extreme Capitalist BS that it's "all about the money" in the end.

Apple is not a charity, they don't make products that don't sell or don't make money but those who think it is their "goal" to make money couldn't be more wrong.

- Apple makes great products, that is their goal.

- The single most important economic consideration in terms of whether they decide to sell a product is in fact the margin.

- If the product is good and the margin is good they sell the product.

- Profit is built into the margin (kind of why they call it "the margin")

- If the product doesn't sell they remove it from the market.

Apple doesn't strategise to increase it's profits, or focus on profit to drive it's strategy. Apple builds the profit into each product, and the product is the strategy.

Apple does care about profit but it's approach is a little different, at least when Jobs was running the show. The reasoning is that if you make a product that consumers will love to use over time, you can charge more and sell a lot of them for a great profit.

Apple is known for making stuff that people love to use. This is the key to Apple's stunning success these past few years. People complain that Apple's products are pricey and some whine about specific missing components or capabilities (Flash, floppy drives, that sort of thing). Yet it is generally the view of the majority that on the whole, Apple makes the best stuff. You can't go wrong buying an Apple device. They just work and are beautifully designed.

So if Apple is going to release a product, the thought process it goes through is, does the proposed product produce the optimal user experience. Apple could have opted for a 7-inch tablet right from the start. It would have been cheaper than the current iPad and so much easier to engineer with inherent advantages in terms of weight and ease of handling for prolonged use. They could have been less aggressive in engineering out weight and still had a lighter device. The reason the 7-inch iPad didn't happen is that Ive and Jobs decided the 10-inch iPad was just that much more enjoyable to use. That was especially important at the time because the tablet market, really, didn't exist yet. So to get the market going, the device Apple offered had to be both affordable and a pleasure to use. The iPad was (is) and the rest is history.

Whatever Apple does next, I hope the company stays focused on the same sort of process. It works so why wouldn't Apple keep going down the same path.

Then you must be thrilled about how you have been able to use a stylus since the first iPhone came out

To further detail the difference, you are referring to a capacitance stylus which is just like what your fingers are. What the Note has (and what I hope future Apple products have) is a Wacom digitizer in addition to the capacitance matrix.

As shown with many videos and screen shots the capacitance matrix isn't very precise, especially when it comes to slow moving objects. On the other hand a digitizer is very precise thus allowing for creation that is not currently possible with the iPad's HW.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

There is nothing wrong with buying the product that already does what you wish it to do. To wait on the "hopefully down the road" product based on rumors is just a bag of frustration. If you need a feature and form factor just buy the damn thing that does what you need and move on with your life.

They make an 8gb iPod touch for $199. Why not- 2 full years later, be able to make a $199 7"? Particularly if they use old 3GS non-retinas (which the touch is). I think it'll be retina and $249-$299 if they release, but $199 is easily profitable.

The estimates for the Nexus 7, Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet all suggest slim margins at best, even if you assume economies of scale. Less expensive tablets on the market cut a lot of corners. Apple can do better by virtue of even greater economies of scale and better supply chain management, but I doubt they're going to charge less than $250, $300 being a more realistic expectation.

Apple doesn't strategise to increase it's profits, or focus on profit to drive it's strategy. Apple builds the profit into each product, and the product is the strategy.

Really? So what's with all the forced obsolescence on products that are still covered by Apple Care? Margin not large enough to support past the warranty period? Or products that still function perfectly as the day they were purchased, but Apple chooses to leave them behind? Mountain Lion is going to leave behind a huge number of Macs, some of which are barely 3 years old. That's not strategizing to increase its profits?